Position of the Board of Directors in Higher Education Institutions in Mongolia - Focusing on Analysis of Founder’s Representatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1995, during the process of democratization, Mongolia established a Law on Education and a Law on Higher Education. These laws positioned the board of directors as the ultimate decision-making body within each university and stipulated that the board’s membership include the representatives of the university’s founder, faculty members, students, parents, and alumni, enabling a wide range of people to participate in university governance. At the same time, it was stipulated that the representatives nominated by the founder would account for 51-60% of the board’s membership, giving them a majority that runs counter to the principle of introducing greater diversity into the board. This article examines the positioning of the board of directors in Mongolian higher education institutions through reviews of documents and the websites of existing higher education institutions. In particular, this article clarifies the position of the board of directors as the mainstay of governance systems in both national and private universities in Mongolia. These findings are expected not only to further understanding of Mongolian higher education but also to furnish new insights into the board of directors as an organ for both internal control and external connection. This study offers implications for future research in the field of comparative education on higher education’s governance reform in line with globalization and marketization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".